On Tuesday, three women Lawyers from the Youth Bar Association have filed a petition in the Supreme Court questioning the Bombay High Court's observation that touching a child's body badly without touching the skin does not constitute sexual harassment.

The controversial order was issued on January 24 by Justice Pushpa Ganediwal, a single bench Judge of the Nagpur bench of the high court.

The shocking remarks came as a 31-year-old man was considering changing the shawl of a 12-year-old boy to his chest. The Judge sentenced the defendant to one year in prison, imposing a relatively minor charge of sexual assault, without imposing a pox case.

If POCSO had been charged in the same case, the defendant could have been sentenced to at least 3 years in prison. According to the case, the girl was called inside the house and held on her chest.

If Poxo had been charged in the same case, the defendant could have been sentenced to at least 3 years in prison.

According to the case, the girl was called inside the house and held on her chest. The accused was arrested after the girl told her mother about the incident. The convict was approaching the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.

The court hearing the case made the bizarre remark that the POCSO case would not stand in this case. In order to charge the pox, the defendant had to touch through the garment. Defendant is said to have been held to the chest, even outside the dress. This is not sexual harassment. High Court Single Bench Judge Justice Pushpa Ganediwal interpreted the definition of pox in an affiliated section of the POCSO Act to mean that pox can only be imposed if the girl's genitals are touched without the veil of clothing or touches the genitals of the accused.

Women lawyers at the Youth Bar Association have now filed a special leave petition questioning this shocking observation that could have a decisive impact on future sexual assault cases in the country. The petition contends that this inadvertent and unnecessary observation by Justice Pushpa Ganediwal adversely affects future cases and is contrary to women's safety.

Justice Pushpa Ganediwal also pointed out that the omission of the victim's name in paragraph 12 of his judgment was a blatant violation of Section 228A of the IPC. Manju Jaitley, Adv. Sampreet Singh Ajmani has filed such a complaint in the High Court.

Source Link

Picture Source :